Today in Supreme Court History: March 7, 1965

3/7/1965: Civil rights marchers are attacked by the police in Selma, Alabama. The event would become known as "Bloody Sunday."

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (decided March 7, 1983): police officers had immunity in prisoners' suit alleging they were convicted due to officers' perjury; testimony in court was not "acting under color of law" so no §1983 liability

Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (decided March 7, 1887): federal statute, and not treaty with China guaranteeing safety of Chinese nationals, governed charges of beating and driving out of Chinese nationals from town of Nicolaus, California, and was outside the reach of Congress because interstate commerce not involved; opinion by Waite (in his typically dreary style); Harlan dissents (and as he often did, correctly)

Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (decided March 7, 1960): striking down on Fourteenth Amendment grounds city ordinance prohibiting distributing handbills which did not indicate who prepared or distributed them (handbills urged boycott of businesses which would not hire nonwhites)

Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. --- (decided March 7, 2022): burgling ten different apartments in same building on same night (wow!) counted as only one prior offense for purposes of aggravation provision of Armed Career Criminal Act

South Carolina v. Kateznbach, 383 U.S. 301 (decided March 7, 1966): Voting Rights Act of 1965 is within Congress's powers to enforce Fifteenth Amendment (provisions at issue were elimination of poll tests, presence of federal inspectors, etc.)

Federal Power Comm'n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (decided March 7, 1960): Indian lands were owned in fee simple and were not "reservations" excluded from eminent domain; New York could condemn and flood land for hydroelectric project (with just compensation)

ICC v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R.R. Co., 216 U.S. 531 (decided March 7, 1910): ICC can order main line to install switch connection upon request of shipper but not on request of lateral line carrying only passengers within state

Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385 (decided March 7, 2016): prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory information, Brady v. Maryland, 1963, includes statements from witnesses casting doubt on credibility of prosecution's main witness

[David Nieporent]

Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. — (decided March 7, 2022): burgling ten different apartments in same building on same night (wow!) counted as only one prior offense for purposes of aggravation provision of Armed Career Criminal Act

They weren't apartments; they were storage units in one of those public storage facilities.

[Dan Schiavetta]

sorry -- thanks -- I'll make the correction for next time

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, it makes it much less of a "wow." He broke into a storage facility with a bunch of units in the same building, and then he just robbed a bunch of them. (He broke into the first one, and then broke through the wall into the adjoining one, and then the next wall, and the next…) He was charged with and convicted of ten counts of burglary.

The ACCA specifically gives strikes for crimes "committed on occasions different from one another." The government tried to argue that each theft was a separate "occasion" because they didn't occur simultaneously (that he robbed each unit before moving onto the next one). That stupid argument lost 9-0.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Doesn’t seem stupid to me. Seems like a straightforward application of the Blockburger rule. Though overridden by the statutory language — I wonder if it was put in to avoid application of the rule?

[David Nieporent]

? Blockburger is about double jeopardy, not about the meaning of the word "occasion" in a statute.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not always

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385 (decided March 7, 2016): prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory information, Brady v. Maryland, 1963, includes statements from witnesses casting doubt on credibility of prosecution’s main witness"

For this you need a Supreme Court decision? Seems fairly obvious.

[SRG]

In Wearry, anyone care to guess which two justices dissented? Yup.

I don’t know why Alito and Thomas are so keen to reject obviously legitimate appeals. This isn’t mere deference to state findings. This is malice. Perhaps they both suffer from a less conspicuous version of “Goddard syndrome”.

“According to his clerk, Goddard ejaculated when passing a death sentence on such a regular basis, that a fresh pair of trousers had to be brought to court on those occasions”

Later fallout – Wearry sues the prosecutor and police officer, and even the 5th Circuit let him: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-that-louisiana-prosecutor-and-police-officer-who-fabricated-evidence-are-not-immune-from-civil-rights-lawsuit-by-former-death-row-prisoner

[Dan Schiavetta]

Re: Goddard:

There was a James Bond film (I forget which) with a female villain who had an orgasm every time she killed someone.

[SRG]

I think it was GoldenEye, Xenia Onatopp, played by the eternally delicious Famke Janssen

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Reading the dissent, I see that the appeal was from a state court, and Alito and Thomas instead wanted to wait until the case had been heard by a federal district court and a federal appeals court.

They thought the Court was abusing its process of summary reversal.

It would take a real nerd to get off on these kinds of procedural arguments.

So intead, let's look at what it is about these justices which makes you think about sex?

[David Nieporent]

They thought the Court was abusing its process of summary reversal.

Maybe. But they never have a problem with SCOTUS summarily reversing pro-defendant decisions.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The dissent suggested that, if the defendant's claim was obviously legitimate, the defendant would be able to meet its AEDPA burden, thus winning in the lower federal courts.

If we’re going to talk dirty, the dissent accused the majority of premature adjudication, wink wink, get it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don’t know why Alito and Thomas are so keen to reject obviously legitimate appeals.

Disaffected malcontents and antisocial misfits who are focused on issues other than justice, with side of a Mission From A Vengeful God?

[Frank Drackman]

and a Jerry Sandusky "Happy Ending"

[John F. Carr]

Briscoe complained he had been convicted based on false testimony. At the time he sued his conviction stood. The district court anticipated Heck v. Humphrey by a decade but the appeals court affirmed based on absolute immunity instead.

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks as always!

[a.heroic.dose]

Shh, don't remind him that there's actual supreme court history to cover, just hold his beer.

[Frank Drackman]

And Senescent J was there (on Spring Break from the Naval Academy) with Nelson Mandela and "Corn Pop"!

[the questing vole]

And then Sloppy Joe single-handedly passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, while simultaneously piloting the first spaceship to the moon.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason mainstream legal academia disrespects you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

yes -- thanks

[Dan Schiavetta]

There is the problem of “false flag” leaflets.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We should know if two out of three of the people pushing for the Constitution helped write it. They should sign their names, not hide under "Publius."

/sarc